Appeal No. 2003-1867
Application No. 09/151,321
relation to the Section 112 rejection. Hower is deemed to teach that the controller
(server 25, Fig. 2) selects an image forming apparatus which has a specific mode in a
prior job at the time the selection is made. “The printer properties are stored in the
profiles before in the server. Thus, [t]he printer properties would be considered as the
prior job which have a specific mode of the printer.” (Answer at 13.)
Hower discloses, in column 4, that combination examiner 37 stores at least one
copy of a printer profile 44 that is maintained by server 25, and matches print job
selections with a combination of printer properties provided in the stored printer profile.
Printer profiles 44 are expressly described at column 5, lines 10 through 21 of the
reference. The printer profiles are composed of a set of descriptions of printing media
available at the associated printer, a set of rules which describe the allowed ranges and
interactions between media description parameters for the associated printer, and a set
of rules which describe the finishing, formatting, and output capabilities of the
associated printer. The printer profiles thus do not contain information with respect to
the jobs stored in memory such that a comparison may be made with the specific mode
of the input job. As such, we find no disclosure or suggestion for (claim 1) a controller
that selects an image forming apparatus based, in part, on the circumstance that the
apparatus stores a prior job having the specific mode of the input job at the time the
selection is made.
Independent claims 11 and 16 contain substantially the same requirements that
we find lacking in the rejection of claim 1. The relied-upon evidence does not show
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007